LA Bar Torts and Negligence 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA), which of the following is NOT a recognized theory of recovery against a manufacturer?
- Unreasonably dangerous in construction or composition
- Unreasonably dangerous in design
- Absolute strict liability for inherently dangerous products regardless of any defect (Correct answer)
- Unreasonably dangerous because of inadequate warning
Correct answer: Absolute strict liability for inherently dangerous products regardless of any defect
The LPLA provides four exclusive theories: construction/composition defect, design defect, inadequate warning, and breach of express warranty — it does not impose absolute strict liability merely because a product is dangerous.
Question 2: Under the LPLA, to prevail on a design defect claim, a plaintiff must prove:
- The manufacturer was aware of the defect before the product left its control
- An alternative design existed that could have prevented the damage and its risk-utility was superior to the design actually used (Correct answer)
- The product failed to conform to applicable industry safety standards
- The manufacturer intentionally concealed the design defect from consumers and regulators
Correct answer: An alternative design existed that could have prevented the damage and its risk-utility was superior to the design actually used
LPLA design defect claims require proof that a reasonable alternative design existed and that its risk-utility benefits outweighed those of the product as designed.
Question 3: Under Louisiana Revised Statute 9:2800.6, to recover against a merchant for injuries caused by a hazardous condition on the premises, the plaintiff must prove:
- That the merchant had actual written notice of the specific condition before the accident
- That the merchant violated a specific OSHA or state safety regulation
- Only that a dangerous condition existed and caused the injury, without regard to notice
- That the merchant had actual or constructive notice of the condition, or that the merchant created the condition (Correct answer)
Correct answer: That the merchant had actual or constructive notice of the condition, or that the merchant created the condition
R.S. 9:2800.6 places the burden on the plaintiff to prove the merchant had actual or constructive notice of the condition (knew or should have known) or that the merchant created it.
Question 4: Under Louisiana law, what duty does a landowner owe to a licensee (such as a social guest) who enters the property?
- The same full duty of reasonable care owed to a business invitee
- A duty to actively inspect the premises and correct all dangerous conditions before the visit
- A duty to warn of known hidden dangers that the licensee is unlikely to discover on their own (Correct answer)
- No duty whatsoever because the licensee enters without any business benefit to the landowner
Correct answer: A duty to warn of known hidden dangers that the licensee is unlikely to discover on their own
A landowner owes a licensee a duty to warn of known dangers that are not reasonably apparent, but the landowner need not inspect for unknown dangers as would be required for an invitee.
Question 5: For the intentional tort of battery in Louisiana, the required intent element is:
- The intent to cause harm or physical injury to the victim
- The intent to make contact that the victim would find offensive or harmful in result
- The intent to commit the act that results in offensive or harmful contact with the victim (Correct answer)
- The intent to frighten or intimidate the victim immediately before making physical contact
Correct answer: The intent to commit the act that results in offensive or harmful contact with the victim
Battery requires intent to commit the act that causes contact; the defendant need not intend harm — only the intentional touching itself satisfies the intent element.
Question 6: A Louisiana landowner sets a concealed spring-loaded trap on their property and a trespasser is seriously injured by it. Under Louisiana law:
- The landowner owes no duty to trespassers and cannot be liable under any circumstances for conditions on the property
- The landowner may be liable because even trespassers are protected from willful, wanton, or intentional injury (Correct answer)
- The landowner is strictly liable for all injuries to trespassers caused by artificial conditions on the land
- The landowner is liable only if the trespasser is a child qualifying under the attractive nuisance doctrine
Correct answer: The landowner may be liable because even trespassers are protected from willful, wanton, or intentional injury
Even toward trespassers, landowners are prohibited from intentionally or wantonly injuring them; setting hidden traps is the classic example of willful conduct that creates liability to trespassers.
Question 7: The attractive nuisance doctrine in Louisiana may impose liability on a landowner for injuries to a child trespasser when the landowner:
- Had actual knowledge that a specific child was likely to trespass on the property
- Failed to erect fencing or post warning signs near the dangerous condition
- Maintained an artificial condition likely to attract children that posed an unreasonable risk of harm they could not appreciate (Correct answer)
- Did not maintain adequate liability insurance coverage for child trespasser injuries
Correct answer: Maintained an artificial condition likely to attract children that posed an unreasonable risk of harm they could not appreciate
Attractive nuisance liability arises when a landowner maintains an artificial dangerous condition that is likely to attract children who may not appreciate its risk, creating a duty of reasonable care toward those child trespassers.
LA Bar Torts and Negligence 3
Under the Louisiana Products Liability Act (LPLA), which of the following is NOT a recognized theory of recovery against a manufacturer?